Couldn't Have Said It Any Better Myself

The funny thing about arguing that
couples will damage the lives of the children they
raise is that never once has a couple
conceived a child by accident. Every single gay
and lesbian couple who decided to have a child
together must plan tor it, often in great detail;
whether this is a lesbian couple who need to find
a sperm donor. at gay couple who must find an
surrogate mother or either of these looking to go
through the lengthy and often difficult process of
adoption. Every single child brought Into the
home of a gay or lesbian couple is wanted.

To anyone that might argue being in a gay household would raise more gay children, I feel like that is a bit of an overstep.

Sure, the children might be a little more comfortable with diversity, but turning them gay? No.

If being raised by a certain sexual identity forms you to that sexual identity, where did gays come from anyway? Presumably, most were raised by straight couples, and after a long period of soul searching, and finding themselves, they came out. Their parents sexual identity wasn't projected on them.

The same applies to children of gay couples. They will find their own identity, just like everyone else.

I think the worst part is where people think it's a bad thing that more children will be raised gay.
I've never, ever, seen anyone argue against that at all. they've always tried to refute the fact that the kids would be gay at all.

I actually read something interesting some time ago about homosexuality.
This one guy did a big study on this and he concluded that a vast majority of homosexuals (like 80% or even higher, not sure cant remember) had a bad relationship with their father.
Google it if you want to know more about this. I forgot the man's name who did this study.

I am not homophobic at all, but this man's theory seems plausible to me since I actually know someone who never was gay until at a later age and he has major issues with his father.

Everyone should be free to make their own choices.Psychology is an iffy thing, there are no concretes or solid theories. Sure you'll see some static and basic things, averages, we can all see that. But people are not average or static, they are individuals who bring their own spice of life.
If it was possible to simulate 100 gay couples vs 100 straight couples and to check how each kid in those groups would turn out we could probably say "who gives a **** ".

You can also look at the point made for feral children, their parents or care-takers are animals and they learn the social cues/ language/behavior of their animal parents. In this case you can say "Oh yeah, wolves make wolf like children, that must mean gay/homosexual couples make gay/homosexual kids" Of course correlation does (not) always imply causation.

Social change is always scary to the majority that may become the minority one day.

One day we'll be pansexuals, ******* anything that'll move...Damn those sexy pans....

He's a five year old. Most of the stuff they say they don't understand. Heck, most of the things kids say are just what people have told them. Children don't develop the ability to be critical of ideas until they are 8 or 9.

I wont lie, i dont like it that people are gay at times, then again i have nothing against female gay couples, i guess it is the fact that i dont really like the idea of 2 men kissing and so on. I have nothing against them though, if it makes them happy so be it, but if some asshole is pretending to be gay to get attention i believe he doesnt deserve to be called human. Same is with me and Christians, i dont like Christianity, but i never hate on anyone. Basically everyone i meet gets one chance, sometimes more, if you are an ass to me i will be one towards you.

i suggest you cite Golembok's theory of gender development. i think it was found that there is no significant increase in homosexuality in children with same sex parents, showing that it is a choice and same sex parents do not influence this.

Not disagreeing, but what happens the most is girls that date guys that resemble their fathers and boys dating girls that resemble their mothers. It's their role model for this kind of thing, not saying that gay couples **** their kid's perception but it's something to consider I guess...

Personally I have nothing against the notion of marriage for gays with a different name. Not only because I know it will be easier for the homophobes to accept, but also because I know that in time they will both be recognised under the same label, be it marriage or otherwise.

Number 8 is right you know, I am 6 foot 3 and I hang around with people shorter than me all the time, and just recently they are starting to catch up... admittedly they were 4 when I first acquired them

Well I knew it was a joke. Sort of how about last week when someone posted about the girls who claimed that the creep was "too cute to be guilty" and all. Anyway! I loved this, apparently my eyeglasses are unnatural. So can I take them off and drive a car? Because they'd probably pull me over believing I'm drunk.

Marriage is already a corpse, but there's no reason to urinate on it. For posterity's sake, lets have some reverence for an institution which has given us so much. Libturds like to ook and eek, "DOUBLE STANDARD! TWO CONSENTING ADULTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO MARRY!" but this argument reeks of poisonous individualism. If you want to look at a person's "right" to do something, examine how they fare against the norm through that institution; not blindly following specious egalitarianist notion. For example, you would not allow pedophiles to be boy-scout leaders or school teachers, would you? I know a recent effort of the queers is to break this chain under what they as see another form of oppression, but I hope that everybody here sees the point in restricting boy-lovers from being around many boys, so that it would be easy for said faggot to find the ones he likes.

Fundamentally, only procreative unions are worthy of the state's bounties. Homosexual couples are not, despite what the electric Jew teaches you, very eager for adopting. Lesbians are the ones who adopt children at a rate worth mentioning; probably because their maternal instincts haven't died with the sex of which raising children is associated. At that, you can see the effects of how children are raised without fathers; fathers are vital in the raising of children, which has been proven many times.

Im amazed how much ******** you just wrote while managing to say absolutely nothing.

First you compared homosexual couples to child abusers, which just screams "homophobe." What exactly is the correlation between 2 consenting adults who love each other and have a right to exercise their freedom of choice and a person who finds sexual attraction in a young child who has no notion of what sex and proceeds to take advantage of him?

You proceed to label them as "queers" and "faggots", which shows a mild amount of bias in your argument as you can't seem to refrain insulting them while arguing against their cause.

Finally, you pretend to understand the interest of the gay male by saying that thy are not eager to adopt when in fact that is one of the main struggles for male homosexual couples now a days. Saying that it is all a false notion perpetrated by the media. or how you describe it by also managing to insert a racial slur into your rant.

And to wrap up that *********** of an argument, you go on to say without any type of basis that a father is necessary for the raising of a child which is pure ******** . Just ask any well adjusted member of society raised by a single mother.

You sir, are a bigoted asshole who in an attempt to try and show that going against homosexual relationships are wrong beyond a religious standpoint, just proved how much of a biased asswipe you truly are. Please, go back to your westboro baptist church meeting and don't let your religion touch out reality again.

Im amazed how much ******** you just wrote while managing to say absolutely nothing.
To one who cannot comprehend writing, what they read amounts to nothing more than a cluster of words of which they cannot assemble to an interpretation. I have read books which were badly translated or in Old English and I know how you feel.

First you compared homosexual couples to child abusers
I was talking about the premise of marriage being a "right." I did not say, in essence, "Homosexuals are boy fondlers!"

You proceed to label them as "queers" and "faggots", which shows a mild amount of bias in your argument as you can't seem to refrain insulting them while arguing against their cause.
I believe I am speaking in a casual atmosphere and have breached no etiquette.

Finally, you pretend to understand the interest of the gay male by saying that thy are not eager to adopt when in fact that is one of the main struggles for male homosexual couples now a days. Saying that it is all a false notion perpetrated by the media. or how you describe it by also managing to insert a racial slur into your rant.
A minority of gay "couples" who could adopt in states in which gay marriage is legalized, adopt. This number rests at 20%, with lesbians being the majority of the total. What I meant by "electric Jew" was that normalizing homosexuality is largely the work of Jewish Hollywood and the Jewish liberal media. It is no secret that the media has hoisted the gay agenda, but Jews control that media!

Jewish leaders like billionaire’s Sheldon Adelson, Michael Bloomberg, and Marc Stern of the American Jewish Committee, have all come out in favor of what has traditionally been looked upon as sexual depravity.

Books like Daddy’s New Roommate, (Ken), Daddy’s Wedding, (Daddy marries Ken), King and King, are part of the ADL’s Early Learning Program, molding the minds of impressionable little children...

I would love to interpret what you previously wrote as a coherent argument but it just isn't there. Its so filled with hate and bigotry that you fail to focus on the matter at hand while jumping from ridiculous comparisons about gay rights versus criminal behavior to baseless assumptions about the gay man's interest.

And please, don't play it off as "I thought we were all friends here so I can label anyone however I want" cause you seem to forget context is a thing. The word faggot and queer gets thrown around alot, yes. But when we are talking about the actual struggle of a group of people fighting for their rights, you should show a bit of professionalism in the subject. When I, for example, would be talking about the education of black kids in the community, I wouldn't rsay "those ******* are trying to get an education". Its about common sense

So you re-affirm your use of racial slurs to feed the notion that jews control the media. Well, at least you are honest about your bigotry in that aspect. Of course jews control the media, they are the succesful ones. They are the CEOs and the executives. If the majority of the people in control of the media were White Christian males, nobody would say jack **** about it. But since its another race, everybody has to get in on how its a "conspiracy to feed the liberal, gay, pro-choice agenda." Gimme a break.

The media hasn't perpetrated a scheme to help in the propagation of the "gay agenda", they are appealing to the masses by talking about a topic they are very passionate about. TImes are changing. Everything you said in your OP, could be applied to interracial marriage 70 years ago. Get over yourself and just accept that **** won't always be the same. Supporting the rights of the people doesn't make a society rot, assholes like you who stunt progress with all this "morality" and "traditional values" do make a society fade away.

Have a good one, and check your bed for them queers at night so they don't turn you gay.

Have a good one, and check your bed for them queers at night so they don't turn you gay.
Being homosexual is not a choice. You are believing I represent the Jewish-media's "White redneck bigot" stereotype. I am irreligious (not an atheist).

The media hasn't perpetrated a scheme to help in the propagation of the "gay agenda", they are appealing to the masses by talking about a topic they are very passionate about.
It was the media who made the issue into something the idiotic masses could possibly care about, however. The media is who is shaping this generation and it shaped the last. To say that a magnificent generational increase in support for gay marriage is simply society becoming "smarter and less bigoted" in the span of one generation is a hell of a transformation without a foundation.

But when we are talking about the actual struggle of a group of people fighting for their rights
What rights do they not have?

I would love to interpret what you previously wrote as a coherent argument but it just isn't there.
Fascinating. I do apologize that I am not responding to you in traditional form, but I have to piece this drivel and respond to each individual point because of its irrational format. One paragraph, for example, you denounce me, then you proceed in the next to talk about imaginary "rights" which the gays apparently don't have and then denounce me some more.

But when we are talking about the actual struggle of a group of people fighting for their rights, you should show a bit of professionalism in the subject. When I, for example, would be talking about the education of black kids in the community, I wouldn't rsay "those ******* are trying to get an education". Its about common sense
Lel, perhaps you can say that, "those ******* are being forced to go into Public School with no ambition" and argue against our outdated structure of Public Education. Anyhow, I am not here to show respect to a community which would not show any back otherwise.

Of course jews control the media, they are the succesful ones. They are the CEOs and the executives. If the majority of the people in control of the media were White Christian males, nobody would say jack **** about it. But since its another race, everybody has to get in on how its a "conspiracy to feed the liberal, gay, pro-choice agenda." Gimme a break.
Look at how Disney transformed itself after the death of Walt and its takeover by Eisner. The Jews may not be as coordinated as some claim (jews jewing jews), but they certainly are perverting our country through the media. It is not a coincidence that the Jewish controlled media is pushing typical Jewish interests on American society. The civil rights movement, as you talk about in the next paragraph, had no small share of Jews within its intelligentsia. The 1960s correlates a bit too much with Jewish power flexing its muscles.

I still fail to see a legitimate reason to oppose gay marriage. Your comment; however, reeks of hate and the only valid point you brought was the paternal figure which is not necessary as many people grow without a father and do fine in life.

the paternal figure which is not necessary as many people grow without a father and do fine in life.
Statistics show such cases to be the outliers. Children raised without fathers are more likely to end up drunkards, deadbeats, in prison, rapists (feminist issue here), and void of high school diplomas.

I still fail to see a legitimate reason to oppose gay marriage.
A society which tolerates licentiousness and decadence will rot. Acceptance of homosexuality would be on par with an acceptance of drugs. Most people cannot handle drugs, and similarly most people are not built to lead lives of filth and vulgarity.

Homosexuals carry such a preponderance of diseases, lead shorter lifespans, and are at an increased risk of having mental illness (no doubt because homosexuality itself is a developmental disorder in the wound). They, the ***************** mainstream homosexuals that is, have no concern for society. The will not pass their seed on and thus will not invest political power into anything more than their - what they call - petty "rights" movement. Human nature is not infinitely malleable. On the issue of their "marriage rights," society is not obligated to treat homosexuals the same way that it treats heterosexuals because they are not equal. What I wrote in the first post makes this clear; marriage is not a right. Homosexual marriage has little to no benefits to the state or society while a working institution of traditional marriage is key for the production of well-adjusted workers.

The OP was on fag adoption, a supposed benefits to having fags accepted, so lets examine it.

In the states in which marriage has been available for faggots, an average of only 20% who qualify for the new "rights" have taken advantage. This implies that we know how many faggots there are, so the proportion is most likely less. Most of those queers who adopt are womyn who will raise their children without fathers.

The tin foiler conservatard conspiratards see who owns the media. And who owns the media owns the masses. Thus, the Jews are able to brainwash society (so the conspiritards say) into thinking that the reptilians aren't here and Obama really doesn't want to take away your guns. Of course, the following is just neo-nazi propaganda and the media is really owned by bigoted old white men who hate women.

Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report are the three major weekly newsmagazines published in the United States. The largest and most respected of these is Time, which has a circulation of more than four million. The CEO of Time-Warner is Gerald Levin, a Jewish benefactor of many Jewish and Israeli causes.

Newsweek is the second most widely read weekly, with a circulation of more than three million. It is under the control of the Washington Post’s Katherine Meyer Graham, another avid supporter of numerous Jewish causes.

The third-ranking newsmagazine is U.S. News and World Report, whose owner, publisher and editor-in-chief is Mortimer B. Zuckerman, a proud Zionist who also owns the Atlantic Monthly and the New York Daily News.

According to Publisher’s Weekly, the three largest American publishers are Random House (and its subsidiaries, including the Crown Publishing Group), Simon & Schuster, and Time Warner Trade Group (including Warner Books, Little, Brown, and Book of the Month Club). Jews control two out of three and the third, Random House, has many Jews in important positions throughout the division of the conglomerate it has joined.

Viacom’s CEO and chairman is Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein). Additionally, it should be noted that the largest publisher of children’s books, with more than 50 percent of the market, is Western Publishing, whose chairman and CEO is Richard Snyder, who just replaced another Jew, Richard Bernstein.

The best known of the smaller media companies, DreamWorks SKG, is a strictly kosher affair. DreamWorks was formed in 1994 amid great media hype by recording industry mogul David Geffen, former Disney Pictures chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, and film director Steven Spielberg, all three of whom are Jews. The company produces movies, animated films, television programs, and recorded music. Considering the cash and connections that Geffen, Katzenberg, and Spielberg have, DreamWorks may soon be in the same league as the big four.

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox Television Network, 20th Century Fox Films, and Fox 2000, is the fifth largest megamedia corporation in the country, with 1997 revenues of over $11 billion. It is the only other media company that comes even close to the top four. Murdoch is perhaps a Gentile, but it has been reported his mother, Elizabeth Greene, is Jewish which qualifies him such by Jewish law. (12) but Peter Chernin, who is president and CEO of Fox Group, which includes all of News Corporation’s film, television, and publishing operations in the United States, is a Jew. Under Chernin, as president of 20th Century Fox, is Laura Ziskin, a Jewess who formerly headed Fox 2000. Jew Peter Roth works under Chernin as president of Fox Entertainment. News Corporation also owns the New York Post and TV Guide, and they are published under Chernin’s supervision. Murdoch told Newsweek magazine (July 12, 1999) that he would probably elevate Chernin to CEO of News Corporation, rather than allow the company to fall into the hands of his own children, none of whom are younger than their late twenties. It is hard to imagine a Jew giving a major media corporation to a Gentile underling when he has children waiting in the wings. For his part, Chernin was quite candid: “I get to control movies seen all over the world. . . . What could be more fun?”

Another Jewish media mogul is Edgar Bronfman, Jr. He headed Seagram Company, Ltd., the liquor giant, until its recent merger with Vivendi. His father, Edgar Bronfman, Sr., is president of the World Jewish Congress. Seagram owned Universal Studios and Interscope Records, the foremost promoter of “gangsta rap.” These companies now belong to Vivendi Universal.

Viacom’s chief claim to fame, however, is as the world’s largest provider of cable programming, through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, and other networks. Since 1989 MTV and Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the juvenile television audience. The first quarter of 2001 was the 16th consecutive quarter in which MTV was rated as the #1 cable network for viewers between the ages of 12 and 24. Redstone, who actually owns 76 per cent of the shares of Viacom, has offered Beavis and Butthead as teen role models and currently is the largest single purveyor of race-mixing propaganda to White teenagers and sub-teens in America and in Europe. MTV Networks plans to acquire The Music Factory (TMF) from the Dutch media and marketing group Wegener. TMF distributes music to almost 10 million homes in Holland and Belgium. MTV is expanding its presence in Europe through new channels, including MTV Dance (Britain) and MTV Live (Scandinavia). MTV Italy is active through Cecchi Gori Communications. MTV pumps its racially mixed rock and rap videos into 210 million homes in 71 countries and is the dominant cultural influence on White teenagers around the world.

ABC’s cable subsidiary, ESPN, is headed by president and CEO Steven Bornstein, who is a Jew. The corporation also has a controlling share of Lifetime Television and A & E Television Networks cable companies, with 67 million subscribers each. ABC Radio Network owns 26 AM and FM stations, again in major cities such as New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, and has over 3,400 affiliates.

As for feature films, the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, under Walt Disney Studios, headed by Joseph E. Roth (also a Jew), includes Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Roth founded Caravan Pictures in January 1993, and it is now headed by his fellow Jew Roger Birnbaum. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the Weinstein brothers, Bob and Harvey, who have produced such ultra-raunchy movies as The Crying Game, Priest, and Kids.

When the Disney Company was run by the Gentile Disney family, prior to its takeover by Eisner in 1984, it epitomized wholesome, family entertainment. While it still holds the rights to Snow White, the company under Eisner has expanded into the production of a great deal of so-called “adult” material.

Despite what your local Occupy Protest taught you, CEO'S are not sitting in their office all day counting their gold coins and sitting on a pile of money. Management means everything in how a company or corporation or publishing company works.

Yes, but they hire people, in this case editors, to do things that they cannot devote their attention to.
CEOs focus on the big picture of business, or how to make the most money, keep people employed, do the most business, etc. They'd only really get involved with content if the sales dip a bunch.

Do you think the Jews would allow for anti-Jewish sentiments to be printed in their newspapers? No, they fire such authors. And it is not true that the Jews only represent the CEOs of these companies; they are disproportionately amounted even at the lower levels.

What gets published depends on public opinion. Current public opinion would not allow for anti-semitism, anti-christianity, racism, etc. You cannot blame a CEO for wanting to preserve his profits through avoiding such topics in his work.

Ah, I see. The authors of newspapers just print whatever they want so long as it falls into societal norms. But certainly the management has nothing to do with preventing authors from printing "Jews disproportionally control media"

Paedophiles have been convicted of a crime, you ******** . gays aren't all criminals. Besides, it's not so much that a father is so important for a child's upbringing, but just having 2 parents alone will do it. In lesbian couples, some partners will play the role of a father figure, too. At any rate, they aren't producing any more children, and I don't see a higher adoption rate in heterosexual couples.

Driving and owning a vehicle is also a privilege. But if you specifically deny Asian people the right to drive based on the perceptions of non-Asians, many would think that was bizarre and unfair. A lawsuit would be created and likely succeed.

The point is that just because it is considered a "privilege" does not make it completely open for blatant discrimination.

wow, yeah, you seem accident prone. yeah just take some tylenol. maybe softening up the scab with neosporin for a little while so the skin doesn't hurt when it stretches so much? but let it breathe too. hope that helps.

Not since "all men are created equal". The constitution and its bill of rights are not "laws of the people". They were written with the express intention of documenting the rights guaranteed by birth. They were understood as God (insert other Favorited higher power) given, and as such any person anywhere was born with these fundamental rights. That is why people get so pissed about gun control. The constitution is ironclad. It is untouchable. It can be defined, and restated, but what it says is immutable fact. It is not a law for men, but the code in which the governing body has to work around.

TLDR: No. Its not laws for us, it guarantees that no laws can infringe what it says

even if that argument is kinda... ****** up...let's assume for the sake of arguments that it DID say in the constitution that gay marrige was wrong.

How does that change anything?
Laws and rules are meant to be set, and followed, by the people that made them. They didn't just magically appear out of nowhere. If society decides that gay marrige should be allowed, then the constitution shoudl be changed to say so.

It's peace. The entire point of the Bible is peace. Some religions have taken the Bible and twisted it into a horrible path of death, violence and prejudice. But it's only a book. Faith is what you make of it, no book can hold the answers, not even one written by God. If you truly believe in God, don't look for answers in the passages, ask the author yourself.

Well, sorta.
The part about Sodom and Gomorrah said that Jews should not be gay so to differentiate from them and the other people before God destroyed the cities.
Now this may be a metaphor, Sodom for homosexuality, and Gomorrah for vice, both viewed as a deviation, and thus destroyed.

It states marriage is between man and woman. Actually, it defines the sacrament of holy matrimony as a blessed union between man and woman for the sake of bearing children. marriage in the church is different than marriage at the courthouse. Also, my 3D modeling program can marry surfaces, edges, and points. The WBC went ******* at the release of the newest version.

You're wrong, there is a 100% logical reason to oppose gay Marriage. gay's can't procreate, as in have actual children without intense time consuming scientific endeavors. Sterile couples may have this problem too. But the whole idea behind the argument against gay Marriage could be: We don't want to give tax breaks to people not procreating. And yes, it simply is over a tax break.

Just going to say this, the marriage is a religious ceremony. The definition of marriage is the joining of a man and a woman under the eye of God. If these conditions aren't met, then it's not marriage.

I have nothing against the gay people themselves, and do think that a gay civil union should come with the same legal perks as marriage.

"There are no legitimate reasons that oppose gay marriage besidesthe "It's wrong because God say so" fundamentalist religious nuts like to pretend they are God and can judge and damn anyone different than themselves because they are the supreme sect and they decide what is right and wrong for the rest of us sheep.

Honestly, I am very worried that the children of same-sex couples will have a lot of difficulty developmentally.
Not because they have two moms or dads, but because they'd have to grow up dealing with the sneering little cunts that the hateful bigots shat out raised.

So, since the bigots are the ones who are causing the problem, why do people think the correct thing to do is to keep gay parents from having children? "Oh, I can't let you walk down that road, because later I'll be there shooting everybody who walks me by". Just don't shoot anything, dammit

Hateful/prejudiced speech should be against the law. But no, "First Ammendment wah wah wah. I have the right to be a self-righteous, incoherente babbling fool with no other reasons to be bigot other than being taught that way"

I don't understand why some people are taking this as an argument against gay marriage.
It's a response to use against people who say same-sex parenting will damage the children, explain to them that the only damage facing children of same-sex couples would be the ridicule from hateful children of bigoted couples.

playing devil's advocate here, but in general little kids are cruel if your different in any way even with all the anti-bully stuff going around, bullying is literally the only thing that would concern me about gays adopting

Our school had a kid who had gay parents. No one gave him **** about it, he was a pretty cool guy. If someone accidentally brought something around the topic, someone would help deteriorate away from that topic. I mean really, just raise the kid in a good school. Then he won't get made fun of!

******* were once verbally and physically abused because of societal norms and beliefs. It changed. You don't just stop something because there are some who will try to be assholes, rather, you change the assholes. We changed the assholes who were verbally and physically abusing ******* at any chance they could get, and now they're more welcome in society.
The queers will eventually be allowed in society as well, we just gotta change the cum guzzling, father milking, cat ******* , whore sniffing pieces o' **** .

As an unwanted child, i knew that since the beginning, my mom told that when I was 5 years old, my dad was an addicted to drugs, he left my mom and I when I was 3, but dude, mu whole family knows me for the great smile I always have, eve my friends tell me this very often, I've been feeling like **** dude, but, I always smile

An illness is defined as something that impairs an organisms ability to perform or behave in the manner it was evolved to do. By scientific standards, homosexuality is an illness, since it inhibits the natural process of reproduction as it doesn't render the infected to be attracted to the opposite gender. Two genders exist for a reason. I also find it funny there's idiots that go around shouting to the whole world that they're proud to be gay. Why be proud of being a defected form of life? Most straight guys just like supporting lesbians because they think they're "hawt" and have an IQ lower than their shoe size. In reality, lesbians are mostly just fat bulldykes that try to hit on a man's girlfriend in front of him. And most of them just do it for attention.

This actually happened in Sweden. As a form of protest, people called their offices saying "they felt a little gay that day" so they had to take a sick leave. No longer was homossexuality considered a sickness anymore

I honestly think if God decided to have like--a daughter come down just as Jesus did, we would have a whole new book from the bible. There's the Old Testament, which was changed because the times had changed--and there's the New Testament, which was what it was changed to. If maybe they would re-write a newer Testament...it would say that Love should Overpower sexuality. Even gay animals exist in the wild. It's not natural? Neither is a bees ability to fly. God made it that way, and if you don't like a homosexual and pick on them...aren't you just making fun of one of His creations? That's a spit in the face.

I just think people take it all out of hand. Wars are started over his words, how annoying would that be? God grew with us. Let's say as the world changed, he changed to. But instead he seems to just wipe us out and start anew. He's tried even sending someone down to help. But as they say...If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself. So maybe when he comes...everything will be better. No more War or fighting. An understanding!

Indeed. It is a sin to insult anyone. God will give His last judgement. His people should live life the way He wants them to, and the way Jesus the Christ told it. I am afraid you can not simply change the Bible to meet the times, that would ruin the whole aspect of religion (as humans are writing, not the Lord). On that note, the Bible has the answer to your problem. Here are some of the many Bible verses that some people tend to forget about:

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" - KJV Matthew 5:44.

"For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."
- Matthew 6:14-15

"...do unto others as you would have others do unto you" - Matthew 7:12.

The thing about that is that certain truths already exist. Just because people want something to change, it doesn't change the fact that it isn't true. I could go to every person I know, tell them all about how I think tractors can fly, and write books about it. Does this mean that tractors can fly because I think they can, and that it is therefore truth? No, I will never be able to make them fly. This is true in moral relativism, which is what this generation struggles with. Because some people believe that gay marriage should be legal, it is truth and should happen. But it doesn't work that way. Truth is a definite, set thing that cannot be changed. Since you mentioned God I think it's safe to assume that you have read some of the bible, correct? The Bible has set truths that you can't just change, and marriage is one of them.

In the Bible it says you're not allowed to play with the skin of a pig, and for females you're not allowed to show unnecessary parts of the skin and you're to be beaten to death if you cheat on your husband. Christians don't regard this because it's written in the Old Testament...not the New. He's changed it once--no--twice. Why could he change it again?

My religion is that I believe there's a Heaven and a Hell. But I don't care for either of them. They are something that influnces the world and therefore it influences me...it's like...You know there's a president. But some choose not to associate with or vote for/against or have anything to do with him. He's just...there. That's me.

I cant believe how so much people approves gay marriage and adoption and I just dont see why. gay population is growing, they are having rights they never had and it is just wroooooong on numerous levels. (not just in religious level)

The post is implying that same-sex couples are more likely to treat their children right because in order to do all that planning they have to really WANT to have the child. This is being compared to straight couples who are surprised by children, then feel resentment from the child because they either don't want to (or can't) get an abortion, and don't or can't go through the process of giving the child up for adoption.

A counter-argument can be made that dog fighters plan on having dogs, when they are really up to no good. But to that I would say that there are far more legitimate dog owners than there are dog fighting criminals.

At least that's how I see it. Take it or leave it, makes no difference to me.

It's not about treating the children right, it's being a good parent. That dog owner analogy is wrong, it's more like when a kid says I'll feed the dog and wash it and walk it and play with it and then he buys all the **** the dog needs and begs the parents for a year and then gets it and doesn't take care of it right.

I see what you're getting at, but allow me to offer these counterpoints:

One: The analogy of the child not taking care of the dog is similar, but not the same. This is is simply because because you are comparing children to adults. While both are human, their psyches and priorities are entirely different. A child wants a dog, but also knows that they can give it attention and have their parents take care of it. Adults who want a child, generally speaking, want a child because they want to raise the child. They plan to have a child because they have the desire to raise it and care for it and love it, often placing more value in the life of the offspring than they do their own lives. Good Parents (ones more likely to put effort into having a child) are not children who simply want a playmate.

Two: The act of getting a child (whether the couple is gay or straight, via childbirth or adoption), is far more challenging than having a dog. A child plans for a dog, but the child knows that getting the dog is as as simple as going to the breeder/vet/wherever, and getting said dog. Couples who want to have a child often have to take several challenging steps to do so. Again, this speaks to the commitment in terms of the level of responsibilities the parents are willing to undertake, as opposed to the child with the dog.

For that matter, isn't treating the child right part of being good parents? Sure, there's obviously more involved, but topics like that are covered in parenting classes. These classes are more likely to be attended by those planning to have kids, whether the couple are gay or straight.

Well to point one, the example of a child is very appropriate because the child, like the parents, are likely getting in over their heads and expecting it to be as simple as following certain instructions, but as we all know not everything is that simple.

I call ******** on your second point, getting a child is the easiest ******* thing in the world to do and here are a few ways on how:
1: Do what I did and **** your girl without a rubber and wait 9 months.
2: Foster Child! They're practically giving them away at this point, they try to make some people get more than one by bringing an extra child and playing on their emotions.
3: Do what my mother in law does and adopt the child of a sibling that can't take care of one, whether for incompetence, instability or criminal reasons as well as financial.
and 4: the dumbest one which I only mention because I see it a lot, hire a surrogate mother on craigslist.

And you can't really treat the child right if you're a bad parent, I took this many parenting classes: 0 and I'm still a good parent. There's literally nothing a parenting class can teach you besides CPR on an infant and small child that you can't learn on your own or with your spouse.
And the most, THE MOST MOST MOST IMPORTANT THING TO HAVE IS PATIENCE.
I understand what you mean, being prepared foreshadows success, but not in everything. Do you know what it's like to wake up every two hours to feed a baby and put him back to sleep? It's annoying, and takes patience, which for some reason I have tons of.
I guess it just comes down to, you never know what kind of parent you'll be till you are one y'know?
But I think we both agree that gay or not everyone should be able to adopt and have their own children except siblings, that **** just gets confusing. "Daddy, how come mommy is auntie and I only have 1 ganpa and 1 gam gam?" lol

Well, I believe that my points are valid, but I'm getting tired and that would be another long ass comment. However, more importantly, when it comes down to brass tacks, I believe we are indeed are on the same page. There's definitely parents that plan for kids and wind up being lousy-ass parents. Likewise, there's parents that become parents by accident and are fantastic parents. And, like you said, for the most part parents both gay or straight that want to become parents should be able to do so, barring a situation where that obviously isn't appropriate. I simply believe that planning and wanting to have a child would be more indicative of good future parenting. At the same time, there's definitely instances (such as yourself) where surprise parents are more than capable and patient and loving enough to be awesome parents.